So now there is a K (for Kink) in the LGBTQIACHKP+

Damn, just pipped at the post.

Probably the same reason poly people usually tell you they are poly

It reminds me of the joke "How can you tell if someone is vegan?"

If I've triggered any vegans with my veganphobic post I apologise profoundly.

It’s a bit like the difference between vegans and VEGANS I suppose.

And why the fuck do people have to define themselves as Kinky?

Probably the same reason poly people usually tell you they are poly - because it's the only mildly interesting thing about them? (Except it isn't interesting at all.)

(I've got no problem with people being poly, unless - and this is a common thing, now - they go on and on and on and on about it, and posit it as the new, enlightened way of being in a relationship, superior to boring old monosexuals.)

Like you ArcheryAnnie, I'm also bemused by asexual including people who have loads of sex, with many partners or just the one, and take pleasure from it, but just don't put much store in any emotional component.

"Traditional religion has been replaced by the "religion of the self" there's no god or deity as such, but the self is god"
Patodp- very much agree with this and I think it's causing a lot of narcism.
It's this very concept that the bible says, when humans put themselves above god they will fall. Probably down to self ruin.

Honestly all this identity bollocks is seriously making my head hurt. Most people grow out of needing a tribe when they leave school.

I’m a happily heterosexual pink haired woman who no longer sleeps with other women and wears almost no makeup or dresses. I feel no need to describe myself as a bisexual gender queer AFAB female (or whatever) but I think that’s just because I’m old. Where has this all come from?

This makes no sense? Who is deciding these additions.

L, G and B are not sexual preferences. They aren’t lifestyle choices, ways of presenting and certainly are not mental disorders. Who has deciding they have to align themselves with all those things?

And why the fuck do people have to define themselves as Kinky? FFS most of us enjoy a vast array of ‘types’ of sex but don’t feel the need to make it a lifestyle. Why do they need a political movement?

Maybe with all these other letters, it would now be OK for LGB to break away and form a new sub-group of their own?? It's absurd though isn't it.

Two reasons. One is that LGB conveys "respectability". The other is related and it's that without LGB, people from outside might look and think pervs.

Why would people who don't want to have sex need to organise in any way?

I don't get this, either. Nobody ever got thumped in the street because they weren't holding someone's hand.

And in the wilder reaches of ace "discourse" that I've seen, there's often a thing about "dirty allosexuals" (allosexual = their word for people who aren't asexual), which since lesbians, gay men and bi people have been told gay sex is dirty for forever, pisses me off.

(And there's another thing where people who identify as asexual still choose to have sexual partners and say they experience desire, and so I am baffled as what the fuck asexuality is supposed to be anyway.)

I'm all for people having as little, or as much (safe, consensual) sex as they want. Actually being asexual = fine, and relatively common. Insisting it makes you queer = not fine.

Traditional religion has been replaced by the "religion of the self" there's no god or deity as such, but the self is god.
The Trans movement is about holding strong beliefs not based in material reality and crying "heresy!" "Blasphemy!" at anyone who disagrees with you. Holding secret "spiritual" knowledge that only you understand about your awareness of reality and others simply need blind faith to agree with you and go along with it. It's very cult like and religious.

I think it all went wrong as soon as T was added.
Maybe with all these other letters, it would now be OK for LGB to break away and form a new sub-group of their own?? It's absurd though isn't it. Everyone needing to "identify" and label their sexual preferences. No. One. Cares.

What was considered deviant (and punishable by death) is now tolerated and accepted in most fair societies. That is a good thing in my book. As long as those not able to protect themselves are not harmed or endangered - I say live and let live. Why should I be worried if someone enjoys something I don't? I certainly don't get annoyed about the acronym getting longer and longer.

Yes exactly hairbod- that isn't the religion, it's not in scripture, it's down to people

Porn ok? Sex robots? All forms of sexual fetish?
If not, why not, and what, if any control should society have to protect them from the harmful consequences?

Well I also think 'control' in the form of sending unmarried mothers to a home and then chucking their 'bastard' babies into mass graves is pretty fucking disgusting as well.

Although I'm sure you will tell me that that's not what 'true' religion is about.

I remember how unwelcome and unpleasant my college LGB society were to me. I’m B and there was a very vocal group who didn’t believe the B had any place in LGB

See this is what I mean by internecine conflict. It's alll getting a bit "People's Front of Judea" arguing the toss with the "Judean People's Front".. as Monty Python pointed out - the only way you stop each of these groups dividing and splitting is when each movement has only one individual.

Perhaps that's where we will end up anyway.

Schrodingers-
Yes I agree with that also,
I think there is some political ideology behind this-
It's not the first time either- i.e. promotion of "free love" in Russia to advance a political ideology. It's ultimately leading to exploitation. Although I feel it's a political movement I also think people, or the trans activists are going to jump on the back of it without realising

I don't mind the intent of being more inclusive and tolerant of fellow human beings who previously may have felt peripheral. I worry more about the divisions and internecine conflict between various minorities.

The "thin end of the wedge" argument was used throughout time by the right wing whenever a minority was given rights and recognition ...."Whatever next? Peadophiles?".

It is interesting how many on the liberal left seem to be using the same argument.

If one minority deserves recognition - why not another?

Tbh I wish people would stfu about what they do or don’t do in bed.

I agree. Provided it's safe, sane and consensual, I don't want to know. What I do in bed is nobody else's business but my own and I don't want to know about what other people do.

I think the lgbtq ++ movement is now more about groups seizing the moment of acceptance

I disagree. For me, it's about identity politics, the atomisation of society and the potential for crying 'victim', eg transideology.

Tbh I wish people would stfu about what they do or don’t do in bed. Why do we need to know? And yes it’s absolutely ridiculous to add K to LGB. It makes a mockery of people who actually face oppression and discrimination. Just straight people (and I am straight) trying to be edgy 🤮

I would be interested to know, since people find religion so unacceptable-
Do you think that we should accept all forms of sexuality?
Porn ok? Sex robots? All forms of sexual fetish?
If not, why not, and what, if any control should society have to protect them from the harmful consequences?
I would suggest in the the ever accepting, "tolerant" society we live in... there is now no protection.. society is becoming increasingly vulnerable to the damages. There is nothing that can be done to stop it, if you object your a bigot or a prude.

Useless, rather.

There's definitely some piggy backing happening too, but a person who thinks that being gay is in the same category of thing as wanting to dress up as a pony and have someone lead you around with a bit in your mouth has some rather odd ideas about what being gay is. As the responses to the original article demonstrate, gay people generally don't appreciate their orientation being framed as a fetish or having a category that's been useful for them in that it conveys actual meaning expanded to mean "anyone who has sex in any way other than in the missionary position in the dark with the lights out with someone they're married to, or who's OK with people who have sex in ways other than that".

At this rate I'm not sure I know anyone who doesn't belong in the expanded acronym. Who's left? And thus it becomes useful in terms of conveying meaning or as a framework for political organizing.

I think the lgbtq ++ movement is now more about groups seizing the moment of acceptance, as was said piggy backing", to push through all forms of sexuality in an attempt to normalise them and cause society to accept them, even to celebrate them.

The people "expanding" the acronym do seem to agree with you that being gay is a form of sexual deviancy, though I doubt they agree with you about much else. Your way of seeing the world has most likely had some impact on their attitude to homosexuality, given how often you scratch a super mega queer identified sex-positive blah blah person and find a conservative upbringing.